Roots Rockers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to polar123's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

     

    For me just about any "band" today - guitar, drums, bass & sometimes keyboards - compared to the auto tuned/pro tools "produced" B.S. (Brittney boy bands, other crap) - is a roots band. The Darkness was a throwback to the 70's style of rock & roll not some "produced" sound via technology that allows anyone to put out an album. But again, that's just my opinion.

     


    The Darkness?  Are you serious?

    I don't think it's a roots band for those reasons.  A roots band is something that is doing someting completely organic.  I think you're missing what the point of "roots" means.

     

    The Black Keys, no offense, are one of these trendy, overrated bands. There is nothing revolutionary or unique about them and they don't do anything at all that taps into Americana (folk, blues, jazz, real country, funk, zydeco, or any other REAL American music).

     

     Nonsense. have you even listened to any of their music other than what is played on the radio?

     

     

     




     

     

     



    Inrteresting. You edited your first post.  

     

    I haven't listened to the radio in a decade.  You're asking me that?  I can name 5 bands right now that blow them away that can actually play instruments and write songs.  None of whom are on the radio.

     




    I tend to do that a lot as a new thought comes in and to be honest I thought it was a little harsh. 

    And yes, their are a lot of bands that play their instruments better, but what does that really mean? An argument can be made that the Black Keys are not as stripped down, blusey, or organic as say the White Stripes, and that Jack White is a better player than Dan Auerbach, but you haven't.  To come out an say they are overrated is your opinion, but I dissagree.

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    A few corrections:

    The Black Keys have aptly (and amply) demonstrated the influence on their music from the blues, specifically Junior Kimbrough - of whom they released an entire album of Kimbrough covers: Chulahoma.   ("Have Mercy On Me" is a sweet track.)  They've released 7 albums over about 11 years, so they're neither new nor flash-in-the-pan, as suggested.

    And not for nothing, by they have also produced an album of collaborations with contemporary R&B/hip-hop artists (with varying results, imo), a few with their own roots-y tendencies.  Auerbach himself has produced records by Dr. John, Grace Potter and several indies.

    Whether or not the Keys are "roots rock" can certainly be up for debate, but it's just not factual to say they don't spring in part from an authentic american blues tradition (in addition to R&B, soul and 60's garage rock).  One could have made the same shaky argument about brits Eric Clapton, John Mayall, or Alexis Korner back in the early 60s.

    Yet sadly, we see once again the discord inherent in trying to categorize the music we like into groups we can more or less agree upon.

    That'll teach me, I guess.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    A few corrections:

    The Black Keys have aptly (and amply) demonstrated the influence on their music from the blues, specifically Junior Kimbrough - of whom they released an entire album of Kimbrough covers: Chulahoma.   ("Have Mercy On Me" is a sweet track.)  They've released 7 albums over about 11 years, so they're neither new nor flash-in-the-pan, as suggested.

    And not for nothing, by they have also produced an album of collaborations with contemporary R&B/hip-hop artists (with varying results, imo), a few with their own roots-y tendencies.  Auerbach himself has produced records by Dr. John, Grace Potter and several indies.

    Whether or not the Keys are "roots rock" can certainly be up for debate, but it's just not factual to say they don't spring in part from an authentic american blues tradition (in addition to R&B, soul and 60's garage rock).  One could have made the same shaky argument about brits Eric Clapton, John Mayall, or Alexis Korner back in the early 60s.

    Yet sadly, we see once again the discord inherent in trying to categorize the music we like into groups we can more or less agree upon.

    That'll teach me, I guess.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am well aware of how long they've been putting out their boring albums, but in recent years (since El Camino), they've become more popular.

     

    Again, there are TONS of bands who put out albums every other year who no one knows about.   It took Lucinda Williams like 20 years to get noticed in the mainstream.  She wasn't marketable, so she wasn't mainstream. But, she's as rootsy as you're going to find.

    I just think it's interesting how certain bands rise up simply because of how weak mainstream music is.

    In a couple years, the Black Keys will just fade off.

    Anyway, I've explained how I categorize roots rock, so there is no need to argue. Just surprised someone would mention the Black Keys as a roots rock band. If they're "roots rock", then literally any current pop/rock band is also roots rock, which I disagree with in general.

     

     



    And some people might find Lucinda Williams boring.  And derivative.  And too elegiac.  And old.  (I happen to like them both, so whatevs.  I've been listening to her since the mid-90s.)

     

    The band's lifespan has nothing to do with the 'roots rock' label; yet, as defined by my terms, their adherence and allegiance to a strain of the blues certainly does.   I think it's quite evident; you seem to disagree.  Fine.  

    But that they've recently expanded their sound into what you terms a more "mainstream" area is really irrelevant to their origins and development.  It speaks more to the "mainstream" than it does to them.  And frankly, why would I care about 'mainstream' in the first place?

    You keep disparaging current music with these superlatives instead of offering some examples of known contemporary bands who aren't "weak" or "awful", in your view.  I'd be interested to know.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    I'm getting stuck on the whole "just another pop/rock band" thing. Who else sounds like them?



    Jon Spencer Blues Explosion are the connection I made right away, even in the vocals.  

    And maybe not quite the White Stripes, but more so the Raconteurs.  

    Also perhaps, the Von Bondies (out of Detroit).

     

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    A few corrections:

    The Black Keys have aptly (and amply) demonstrated the influence on their music from the blues, specifically Junior Kimbrough - of whom they released an entire album of Kimbrough covers: Chulahoma.   ("Have Mercy On Me" is a sweet track.)  They've released 7 albums over about 11 years, so they're neither new nor flash-in-the-pan, as suggested.

    And not for nothing, by they have also produced an album of collaborations with contemporary R&B/hip-hop artists (with varying results, imo), a few with their own roots-y tendencies.  Auerbach himself has produced records by Dr. John, Grace Potter and several indies.

    Whether or not the Keys are "roots rock" can certainly be up for debate, but it's just not factual to say they don't spring in part from an authentic american blues tradition (in addition to R&B, soul and 60's garage rock).  One could have made the same shaky argument about brits Eric Clapton, John Mayall, or Alexis Korner back in the early 60s.

    Yet sadly, we see once again the discord inherent in trying to categorize the music we like into groups we can more or less agree upon.

    That'll teach me, I guess.

     



    Can't say I never warned ya! ;)

    I don't see it as a problem to debate these issues, but this kind of points up what I am always trying to convey about consensus opinions and opinion in general. Obviously, consensus opinions are very hard to come by because the small group of posters here can't even form a consensus. And therein lies the underlying problem in discussing music. So much is dependent on opinion, yet we often convey our opinions more like they are facts that everyone is in basic agreement on.

    Now in this case, I like what you have done to present evidence. You are not just stating your opinion about how you feel about a certain band. You have done a good job using facts in your  position against a position based mainly on opinions. This is what I try to do and it can get frustrating at times because the debate seems to be about two different things, with no true meeting of the minds. I have no knowledge of much of this music so I can't get involved in this debate.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    A few corrections:

    The Black Keys have aptly (and amply) demonstrated the influence on their music from the blues, specifically Junior Kimbrough - of whom they released an entire album of Kimbrough covers: Chulahoma.   ("Have Mercy On Me" is a sweet track.)  They've released 7 albums over about 11 years, so they're neither new nor flash-in-the-pan, as suggested.

    And not for nothing, by they have also produced an album of collaborations with contemporary R&B/hip-hop artists (with varying results, imo), a few with their own roots-y tendencies.  Auerbach himself has produced records by Dr. John, Grace Potter and several indies.

    Whether or not the Keys are "roots rock" can certainly be up for debate, but it's just not factual to say they don't spring in part from an authentic american blues tradition (in addition to R&B, soul and 60's garage rock).  One could have made the same shaky argument about brits Eric Clapton, John Mayall, or Alexis Korner back in the early 60s.

    Yet sadly, we see once again the discord inherent in trying to categorize the music we like into groups we can more or less agree upon.

    That'll teach me, I guess.

     

     



     

    Can't say I never warned ya! ;)

    I don't see it as a problem to debate these issues, but this kind of points up what I am always trying to convey about consensus opinions and opinion in general. Obviously, consensus opinions are very hard to come by because the small group of posters here can't even form a consensus. And therein lies the underlying problem in discussing music. So much is dependent on opinion, yet we often convey our opinions more like they are facts that everyone is in basic agreement on.

    Now in this case, I like what you have done to present evidence. You are not just stating your opinion about how you feel about a certain band. You have done a good job using facts in your  position against a position based mainly on opinions. This is what I try to do and it can get frustrating at times because the debate seems to be about two different things, with no true meeting of the minds. I have no knowledge of much of this music so I can't get involved in this debate.




    **********************************************

     

    All my post's here come with a caveat - In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

    This would be a lot better forum here if you just came to the same conclusions as me!

     

    ;)

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to SlimPickensIII's comment:

     

    It doesn't get any better than the Lizard Lounge on a Tuesday night when Session Americana gathers around a table and starts up.

    My favorite 'name' band, that's still touring would have to be Los Lobos.

     




    I like the Lizard Lounge, and the Poetry Jam, though I haven't been there for ages.

    Been a huge Los Lobos fan since I first heard KIKO twenty years ago. Talk about a band that fuses a lot of different elements into their music. One of my favorite Austin City Limits is when they debuted Good Morning Aztlan. 

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    A few corrections:

    The Black Keys have aptly (and amply) demonstrated the influence on their music from the blues, specifically Junior Kimbrough - of whom they released an entire album of Kimbrough covers: Chulahoma.   ("Have Mercy On Me" is a sweet track.)  They've released 7 albums over about 11 years, so they're neither new nor flash-in-the-pan, as suggested.

    And not for nothing, by they have also produced an album of collaborations with contemporary R&B/hip-hop artists (with varying results, imo), a few with their own roots-y tendencies.  Auerbach himself has produced records by Dr. John, Grace Potter and several indies.

    Whether or not the Keys are "roots rock" can certainly be up for debate, but it's just not factual to say they don't spring in part from an authentic american blues tradition (in addition to R&B, soul and 60's garage rock).  One could have made the same shaky argument about brits Eric Clapton, John Mayall, or Alexis Korner back in the early 60s.

    Yet sadly, we see once again the discord inherent in trying to categorize the music we like into groups we can more or less agree upon.

    That'll teach me, I guess.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am well aware of how long they've been putting out their boring albums, but in recent years (since El Camino), they've become more popular.

     

    Again, there are TONS of bands who put out albums every other year who no one knows about.   It took Lucinda Williams like 20 years to get noticed in the mainstream.  She wasn't marketable, so she wasn't mainstream. But, she's as rootsy as you're going to find.

    I just think it's interesting how certain bands rise up simply because of how weak mainstream music is.

    In a couple years, the Black Keys will just fade off.

    Anyway, I've explained how I categorize roots rock, so there is no need to argue. Just surprised someone would mention the Black Keys as a roots rock band. If they're "roots rock", then literally any current pop/rock band is also roots rock, which I disagree with in general.

     

     



    And some people might find Lucinda Williams boring.  And derivative.  And too elegiac.  And old.  (I happen to like them both, so whatevs.  I've been listening to her since the mid-90s.)

     

    The band's lifespan has nothing to do with the 'roots rock' label; yet, as defined by my terms, their adherence and allegiance to a strain of the blues certainly does.   I think it's quite evident; you seem to disagree.  Fine.  

    But that they've recently expanded their sound into what you terms a more "mainstream" area is really irrelevant to their origins and development.  It speaks more to the "mainstream" than it does to them.  And frankly, why would I care about 'mainstream' in the first place?

    You keep disparaging current music with these superlatives instead of offering some examples of known contemporary bands who aren't "weak" or "awful", in your view.  I'd be interested to know.

     

     

     




    Shallow lyrics, rehearsed, gimmicky, repetitive songwriting.  I like a lot of current music, just not the trendy, mainstream stuff.

     

    Bands I see a bunch who are somewhat new that I like to catch on tour as much as possible are Mofro (funk, soul), Ryan Bingham and the Dead Horses (country/folk, rock), Donna the Buffalo (zydeco, folk - but they've actually been around a while now) , Old Crow Medicine Show (bluegrass), the Steepwater Band (blues).  These kinds of newer bands are more rootsy than the gimmicky Black Keys to me.  

    I am sorry, but when some bands try to write the same song over and over, the sort of come off rehearsed.

     




    Fair enough.  Slickness can only take one so far, usually.

    I know all the choices you mentioned except the last, and all paint a much better picture of your idea of the thread label.  It's all good by me.

    Still not sure what the 'trendy mainstream' stuff is.  By most accounts, I think the more genuine rock acts are pretty low on the trend ladder in terms of a sales and exposure.  Maybe we need a thread on what 'mainstream' is.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    A few corrections:

    The Black Keys have aptly (and amply) demonstrated the influence on their music from the blues, specifically Junior Kimbrough - of whom they released an entire album of Kimbrough covers: Chulahoma.   ("Have Mercy On Me" is a sweet track.)  They've released 7 albums over about 11 years, so they're neither new nor flash-in-the-pan, as suggested.

    And not for nothing, by they have also produced an album of collaborations with contemporary R&B/hip-hop artists (with varying results, imo), a few with their own roots-y tendencies.  Auerbach himself has produced records by Dr. John, Grace Potter and several indies.

    Whether or not the Keys are "roots rock" can certainly be up for debate, but it's just not factual to say they don't spring in part from an authentic american blues tradition (in addition to R&B, soul and 60's garage rock).  One could have made the same shaky argument about brits Eric Clapton, John Mayall, or Alexis Korner back in the early 60s.

    Yet sadly, we see once again the discord inherent in trying to categorize the music we like into groups we can more or less agree upon.

    That'll teach me, I guess.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I am well aware of how long they've been putting out their boring albums, but in recent years (since El Camino), they've become more popular.

     

    Again, there are TONS of bands who put out albums every other year who no one knows about.   It took Lucinda Williams like 20 years to get noticed in the mainstream.  She wasn't marketable, so she wasn't mainstream. But, she's as rootsy as you're going to find.

    I just think it's interesting how certain bands rise up simply because of how weak mainstream music is.

    In a couple years, the Black Keys will just fade off.

    Anyway, I've explained how I categorize roots rock, so there is no need to argue. Just surprised someone would mention the Black Keys as a roots rock band. If they're "roots rock", then literally any current pop/rock band is also roots rock, which I disagree with in general.

     

     



    And some people might find Lucinda Williams boring.  And derivative.  And too elegiac.  And old.  (I happen to like them both, so whatevs.  I've been listening to her since the mid-90s.)

     

    The band's lifespan has nothing to do with the 'roots rock' label; yet, as defined by my terms, their adherence and allegiance to a strain of the blues certainly does.   I think it's quite evident; you seem to disagree.  Fine.  

    But that they've recently expanded their sound into what you terms a more "mainstream" area is really irrelevant to their origins and development.  It speaks more to the "mainstream" than it does to them.  And frankly, why would I care about 'mainstream' in the first place?

    You keep disparaging current music with these superlatives instead of offering some examples of known contemporary bands who aren't "weak" or "awful", in your view.  I'd be interested to know.

     

     

     




    Shallow lyrics, rehearsed, gimmicky, repetitive songwriting.  I like a lot of current music, just not the trendy, mainstream stuff.

     

    Bands I see a bunch who are somewhat new that I like to catch on tour as much as possible are Mofro (funk, soul), Ryan Bingham and the Dead Horses (country/folk, rock), Donna the Buffalo (zydeco, folk - but they've actually been around a while now) , Old Crow Medicine Show (bluegrass), the Steepwater Band (blues).  These kinds of newer bands are more rootsy than the gimmicky Black Keys to me.  

    I am sorry, but when some bands try to write the same song over and over, the sort of come off rehearsed.

     

     




     

    Fair enough.  Slickness can only take one so far, usually.

    I know all the choices you mentioned except the last, and all paint a much better picture of your idea of the thread label.  It's all good by me.

    Still not sure what the 'trendy mainstream' stuff is.  By most accounts, I think the more genuine rock acts are pretty low on the trend ladder in terms of a sales and exposure.  Maybe we need a thread on what 'mainstream' is.



    Well, I tried one -- the "is mainstream a genre?" ... if you recall.   We pretty much came full circle on the "just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's bad, and just because it's bad doesn't mean it's mainstream" circle.   It used to be determined by radio play, but radio is dead, etc.    

    BTW, I saw a rather odd article yesterday on this issue, but the article was too long to cut and paste, and I didn't know how many people would find it too laborious to read.   Lots to do with the idea that being "popular" must mean something, and just because the masses love something (anything ... a film, a musical artist, etc.) that isn't a cause to diss it.   blah blah.   Seems that this whole idea of dissing the mainstream has gone viral.  :)  

    Frankly, I was concentrating on a comment you made (I think it was you) a while back, that RockScully made recently as well.  I found myself thinking, hey, that's it in a *nutshell*.  It was stated along the lines of "perhaps what's really happened is that the industry has "lowered the bar" and / or "watered down the standards" or some combination of reasoning out that perhaps it's "easier" to make it into the mainstream now?   I think you wrote it in reference to Taylor Swift's talent, which is undeniably real, but tempering it with and juxtaposing it against who else and what else she has to compete with.     Do you remember?

    So I'd like to discuss that notion of the watering down of standards, the lowering of the bar, the potential that the fusion of too many music styles has to be taken into account (I mean, does Taylor Swift still compete in the country music sphere?  seriously?), etc.   It's as though we need to recognize a whole paradigm shift, looking at the big picture.    A systemic change, an organic change ... if that's the case,  is a more valid way to reason out why the current music just isn't cutting it.   (and I say current, not contemporary, as contemporary for me, goes back more like 20 years, not just the last 10 or so).  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    Iris Dement is an Americana performer with a unique and interesting sound. He voice sounds like it comes from the past while her sensibilities are modern.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    @ yoga

    I don't think the music industry has the power to control the standards of music. I think there are markets for a certain type of music and they try to fill it. I don't believe they exercise control over that market. But as has always been true, when a profitable market is found, it will be cultivated and exploited for profits for as long as the industry can do it. When the Beatles hit big, bands probably tried to hop on to that sound and milk it for all they could. People in the music industry were probably looking for the next Beatles, which of course never came.

    I don't believe that music marketing executives can create a market with certain standards and a guarantee of success. They can seek out marekts to exploit but do we know about all the music that fails to break through? If the music market is mainly tweens, the most popular music will most likely reflect that.

    If someone in the music industry is savvy enough to discover that a market exists for intelligent music lovers, they will try to fill it with intelligent music. But unfortunately, that market must be worth the risk of the cost to them of producing that music.

    I am reading a book about Chess records. Leonard and Phil Chess were in business to make money, bottom line. But because of where they lived and worked, they came in contact with black blues musicians. Coincidentally, the black population of Chicago was growing by leaps and bounds. They saw an untapped market for music that blacks would enjoy, and they tried to take advantage of that and profit from it. Some great music came out of that, but it wasn't because the Chess brothers were idealists. But they weren't cynics either. In their own way, they provided blacks with cultural benefits that they otherwise may have missed out on. And in the long run, they exposed all Americans to one of its great musical forms.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    @ yoga, dd...

    Good posts.

     

    Funny, but I just read an interview with Jim James about that very thing; his opinion was indeed colorful and quite discordant about today's meteoric "stars".  And I respect his opinion both because and in spite of my deep regard for his music.  But it's still just one musician's opinion.

     

    More to the point, there are artists who aspire to the mainstream, and there are artists who don't.  In either group exists people who focus on the music more than the fame, so there is artistic integrity on both sides.

    As fans, we are the same way...some geared toward mainstream, and some not.  And there can be genuine appreciation all around.  

    And once in a while, both populist and critical acclaim merge into a swell of tacit agreement. It's not all that often, but it's there.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    As mentioned in the past, WUMB (a public broadcasting affiliate from UMassB) is the gold standard for roots / blues / folk audiences.   It's not my favorite station, TBH, I usually listen to it on the weekends only; however, I check the website for new music and other music information b/c it's such a good resource:      http://www.wumb.org/home/index.php

    There is livestream available, so it's not as though it's location dependent for access.

    Thought you'd find this "best of 2012" list, derived by WUMB, enlightening, in light of this thread, and to illustrate my point as to the focus of the programming on WUMB.   Not exactly a list you will find on mainstream radio.  :)   

    The Top 10 recordings of 2012 presented by WUMB.

    10"Kin"  
              by Rodney Crowell and Mary Karr

    9"Hundred Dollar Valentine "  
               by Chris Smither

    8"Buddy & Jm"    
               by Buddy Miller and Jim Lauderdale

    7"Stray Birds"    
                by The Stray Birds

    6"Camilla"    
                by Caroline Herring

    5"Big Station"    
             by Alejandro Escovedo

    4"The Lion's Roar"    
              by First Aid Kit

    3"Tempest"    
              by Bob Dylan

    2"Sing The Delta"    
                by Iris Dement

    1"Hymns To What Is Left"      
               by Greg Brown

     

    Best New Artist / 2012:  The Stray Birds 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    If the music industry has changed in the last twenty years, it may be due to technology-- the way we get our music. People that would not even see the insde of a music exec's waitiing room are the flavor of the month due to social media websites like YouTube and Facebook. The internet has changed the way we see and get our music, and learn about artists.. Good or bad, tons of music and information are now at the tip of your fingers, and if you like something, you send it along and it catches fire ala Rebbeca Black. Music executives are just taking advantage of this "trend." Wether or not the music is good, or watered down is really up to the listener imo. If something is good and unique, it will probably rise on its own merits like the Black Keys, Heartless Bastards, Lucinda Williams, and others as demonstrated by Yoga's above post.  

    To be honest the Justin Beibers of the world have always been around in the form of David Cassidy, and Bobby Sherman, singers who appeal more for their looks than actual talent. Nothing new there.

     ETA>

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    Here's a band: The Jayhawks.

    What about a band like REM? That's bascially folk music with a new wave/pop kind of twist to it.

     



    Big fan of The Jayhawks (and the whole, related Uncle Tupelo family).  Like the best, mellower parts of Tom Petty and REM in a loose, jangly package.

    They've been tagged with the 'alt-country' label often, but to me they always seemed to invoke the bands above more than classic country.  More of what I think of as 'heartland rock', or 'northern country'...more Neil Young than Loretta Young...

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    @ yoga

    I don't think the music industry has the power to control the standards of music. I think there are markets for a certain type of music and they try to fill it. I don't believe they exercise control over that market. But as has always been true, when a profitable market is found, it will be cultivated and exploited for profits for as long as the industry can do it. When the Beatles hit big, bands probably tried to hop on to that sound and milk it for all they could. People in the music industry were probably looking for the next Beatles, which of course never came.

    I don't believe that music marketing executives can create a market with certain standards and a guarantee of success. They can seek out marekts to exploit but do we know about all the music that fails to break through? If the music market is mainly tweens, the most popular music will most likely reflect that.

    If someone in the music industry is savvy enough to discover that a market exists for intelligent music lovers, they will try to fill it with intelligent music. But unfortunately, that market must be worth the risk of the cost to them of producing that music.

     

     

    Thanks, DD.   It's not always easy to articulate thoughts in the first pass, and I adhere to what you said here re: the industry discovering what's hot, and once done, exploiting it for all it's worth.   This is more what I meant in terms of the industry "standard" rather than implying there is an actual set of standards (too bad there isn't ...), such as there is in my profession.   (and FWIW, we have our own set of issues that are bones of contention for years now. :)  )

    More to the point, I still believe this harkens to the reason there are increasing numbers of people dissing the current music, and stating it all sounds the same (which, in a word, is generally considered awful) because of the increase in using the "formula" you state in your post.   It's not so much that the issue or problem is new (it isn't); it is potentially, however, hitting the wall:  the industry is hurting, and producers are not as likely to take the risks that they used to feel free to take.   No pain, no gain.  And the "no gain" has resulted in less competition, fewer experimental artists, and a  disgruntled audience at large that takes the POV that the current music has been an epic fail for a number of years.    

    Also, have to say I agree that there are times and there are artists in the current mainstream that are geared and groomed for the tween audience, and far be it from those of us out of that age group to diss that music.   Now if that audience can't stomach the music that's being fed to them ... (and that seems to also be the case), then that's another story.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    In response to polar123's comment:

    If the music industry has changed in the last twenty years, it may be due to technology-- the way we get our music. People that would not even see the insde of a music exec's waitiing room are the flavor of the month due to social media websites like YouTube and Facebook. The internet has changed the way we see and get our music, and learn about artists.. Good or bad, tons of music and information are now at the tip of your fingers, and if you like something, you send it along and it catches fire ala Rebbeca Black. Music executives are just taking advantage of this "trend." Wether or not the music is good, or watered down is really up to the listener imo. If something is good and unique, it will probably rise on its own merits like the Black Keys, Heartless Bastards, Lucinda Williams, and others as demonstrated by Yoga's above post.  

    To be honest the Justin Beibers of the world have always been around in the form of David Cassidy, and Bobby Sherman, singers who appeal more for their looks than actual talent. Nothing new there.

     ETA>

    @polar  --


    This is a piece to the pie, but it's not the whole pie.   

    I was addressing more what the root causes might be for the bottoming out of the quality of current music.   You can only be judged and benchmarked against your competition.   This is true in any industry -- think about going on an interview and having the sense that you had the job in the bag because you could address every bullet point and aced the interview  --- not knowing that all of your competitors had similar high-quality resumes, and also aced their interviews, too.    You still might get the job, but the high quality competition speaks for the candidate pool, and if you get the job, it's an honor and an achievement.  

    But what if, in another scenario, you and all the other candidates were thought to be fairly mediocre?   What if the employer invited you and the others in because they didn't want to pay for a higher priced, more experienced person, and they decided to lower the bar and take a less qualified person so they could also lower the salary?  

    Your same resume would continue to take on a different value, depending on your competition, sometimes making it look golden, sometimes making it look merely gold-plated.  :)   

    When competition is weak, is it as hard to be above the fray?    

    This is why there may be validity to the notion that we've had a long stretch of mediocre artists, who are made to look strong, because their competition is weak.

    In the cases where the cream really does rise to the top (Keys, Bastards, Williams, etc. (though I don't like Williams ... hahaha) , they will will rise to the top anyhow --- but as previously discussed, it will take a lot longer because they came on the scene when the competition was more stringent or because they were not using a formula.    Anyhow, just something to consider.   =)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    Is it that hard to pick out the blatantly commercial music - made by artists who were obviously put together in a board room somewhere with the sole purpose of making money?

    I don't think so, and I even prefer to give most people the benefit of the doubt.

    And yet some folks are just fine with that stuff.  They like it en masse, just like some do for genre fiction or hollywood focus group cinema.

    One article on a related topic brought up "The Avengers".  Not everyone's cup of tea to be sure, but it was very successful and yet still well-regarded among critics and audiences of all stripes.  The perception is that Joss Whedon and co. had elevated the form only slightly, but enough to be noticeable.  But in the end, it's still just a comic book flick.

    I've been back and forth on this for a while, but I think it's a bit of a trap to try and fit popular culture into boxes better designed for 'higher' culture.  It just doesn't make sense to evaluate them by mutually defined terms.  

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Roots Rockers

    Matty, I was defining them on mutual ground -- even if it didn't come across that way.   That's why I said you're only as good as your competition.   In any market ... as long as the benchmarking is consistent.  

    It's useless, as we recently discussed re: the Spike Lee / Q. Tarantino divide, to compare a case of apples and oranges; while you may *prefer* one to the other, their missions and purposes are very different, so comparing them doesn't really make sense, and is fair to neither of them.   

    I hear you.   But I *was* suggesting that the competition that I mentioned, was across the same playing field.    Maybe my "resume" analogy wasn't that good, but I was attempting to show that not only does time and place matter, but you really are only as good as the competition against which you benchmark and are judged.   When many people on the forum speak of the wealth of talent in the 60's and 70's, are they benchmarking fairly?  I think they / we are.   When we speak of the dearth of talent over the aughts to the current day, we are also benchmarking fairly, IMO.   

    Maybe my bad for having difficulty articulating ... but  this may be one of those discussions that needs to be discussed in person, and I'm having a hard time getting my points across, points that I feel have validity.   It's not a matter of evaluating, it's a matter of assessing why there is a *perceived* downfall in quality.    It may all be perception, but it would take miles and miles of research to figure that out.  :P

     

     

Share